USRC Harriet Lane Model Shipways 1:96 scale circa 1863

dockattner said:
I was thinking more in terms of length - but I guess any differences would make it a talking point...
Click to expand...
I just took another look at the USS Michigan - she seems to have carried at least two sizes on davits one pair fore and one pair aft. Good lookout, Paul!
 
The Gavel said:
Thoughts? I'm leaning toward double the boats so that I can double the detail :p
Click to expand...
Whatever floats your boat(s) :rolleyes: You are much more thoughtful than me. I just charge ahead, usually into the next snafoo. I love the drawings.Thumbs-Up
BTW my little Harriet Lane always gets the most interest at shows out of all my offerings.
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Very analogous!
Click to expand...
Yes, I think so too, Pete. Although I also think Harriet Lane was a bigger ship at 639 tons and 180 ft long. Harriet Lane was enormous compared to the other USRC ships which were on average 300 tons lighter and 20 feet shorter. Although the Michigan was regular Navy, I think she was a smaller vessel, based on what I found in Silverstone's Civil War Navies. Silverstone's book catalogues all of the ships from 1855-1883. Some of the detail (like tonnage) is light for some of the smaller Navy ships like Michigan, but he gives a lot of info on the USRC's - perhaps because the revenue service kept better records?
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Whatever floats your boat(s) :rolleyes: You are much more thoughtful than me. I just charge ahead, usually into the next snafoo. I love the drawings.Thumbs-Up
BTW my little Harriet Lane always gets the most interest at shows out of all my offerings.
Click to expand...
LOL, Pete! I'm thinking to go with two boats per side and make one pair a bit larger for additional interest.
 
In an article on the Harriet Lane in the Nautical Research Journal ( sorry don't recall which issue, a couple years ago or more) shows the HL as originally designed with the two boats farther aft, as I recall. The plans for my old solid hull MS kit have the boats closer to the sponson. I liked the look of them farther aft. The other arrangement looked cramped, impractical and less aesthetically pleasing.
The boats on the Michigan look like larger power launches. The blue picture of her from the online Dead Confederates guesstimate as to her Civil War configuration has the boats aft. I went with that picture as the basis for my model.
I wasn't nearly as careful as you in the alterations on my model. I just went with what looked the most in proportion to my eye.

Pete
 
The Gavel said:
Yes, I think so too, Pete. Although I also think Harriet Lane was a bigger ship at 639 tons and 180 ft long. Harriet Lane was enormous compared to the other USRC ships which were on average 300 tons lighter and 20 feet shorter. Although the Michigan was regular Navy, I think she was a smaller vessel, based on what I found in Silverstone's Civil War Navies. Silverstone's book catalogues all of the ships from 1855-1883. Some of the detail (like tonnage) is light for some of the smaller Navy ships like Michigan, but he gives a lot of info on the USRC's - perhaps because the revenue service kept better records?
Click to expand...
Interesting in that HL had a two masted brigantine rig and the smaller of the two is rigged out as a three masted schooner!
Go figure.:oops:
 
BTW your model is shaping up really nicely. I eagerly await seeing how she turns out! I'm glad to see another take on her Civil War look.
Thumbs-Upthus far! Thanks for all the interesting process posts.

Pete
 
Peter Gutterman said:
In an article on the Harriet Lane in the Nautical Research Journal ( sorry don't recall which issue, a couple years ago or more) shows the HL as originally designed with the two boats farther aft, as I recall. The plans for my old solid hull MS kit have the boats closer to the sponson. I liked the look of them farther aft. The other arrangement looked cramped, impractical and less aesthetically pleasing.
The boats on the Michigan look like larger power launches. The blue picture of her from the online Dead Confederates guesstimate as to her Civil War configuration has the boats aft. I went with that picture as the basis for my model.
I wasn't nearly as careful as you in the alterations on my model. I just went with what looked the most in proportion to my eye.

Pete
Click to expand...
I hear you, Pete! I remain mildly torn between 1 boat farther aft and 2 boats. Referencing the photos in post #31, I can see your point about looking cramped. I like to have my cake and eat it too, so I'll plan for two boats with the option of leaving one off :p
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Interesting in that HL had a two masted brigantine rig and the smaller of the two is rigged out as a three masted schooner!
Go figure.:oops:
Click to expand...
Not sure what to make of the different rigs. Could it be that because Harriet Lane was built for the open ocean, she was brigantine rigged, whereas Michigan was confined to Lake Erie she didn't need the benefits of a square rigged fore mast?
 
Peter Gutterman said:
BTW your model is shaping up really nicely. I eagerly await seeing how she turns out! I'm glad to see another take on her Civil War look.
Thumbs-Upthus far! Thanks for all the interesting process posts.

Pete
Click to expand...
Thank you, Pete! I'll have more to post, I hope, later in the week.
 
The Gavel said:
Not sure what to make of the different rigs. Could it be that because Harriet Lane was built for the open ocean, she was brigantine rigged, whereas Michigan was confined to Lake Erie she didn't need the benefits of a square rigged fore mast?
Click to expand...
Good question. One of those head scratchers. They changed these rigs around nearly as often as underwear for whatever purpose du jour it seems. Your explanation makes as much sense as any.
 
Good morning!

In post #34 I showed the planking for the foredeck. Here are some shots of the framing and the foredeck aboard. Notes: I didn't have the right spear head shape to the foredeck - it was more like a triangle. I soaked some 1/8" square stock for a few minutes and clamped the pieces to the hull to get the right shape. I made a mistake here. I clamped the pieces with the slope of the prow rather than an equal 5 scale feet from the main deck. I didn't catch the mistake until I had the completed unit aboard for fitting and it occurred to me that the deck should be pretty much flat otherwise how would the crew manage the Parrot gun :eek: . Well, after some judicious sanding 220 grit, no lower, I am managing to get the deck more level. I might have sulked I had it all to do all over again.

After the sides of the frame were quite dry I glued the joint and inserted and glued the beams. After all was dry, I lifted it out and began to sand the topside flat. Having sanded the gunk off of the planking, I used the frame as the template for the correct shape of the deck.

HL foredeck frame.jpghl foredeck sanded.jpgHL Foredeck aboard.jpg
 
dockattner said:
A woodworker's scraping tool or razor blade might assist with the leveling (if you have the thickness of plank needed for that). BTW - that's nice planking my friend!
Click to expand...
Thank you, Paul! I'm pretty happy with how it's coming out. Thanks for the advice about the edged devices. I'm probably going to stick with slowly sanding things into shape. I really don't want to take a Mulligan on this one ;)
 
What ho, shipmates!?! I hope all's well with all of you! I was away from the log and the build for the holidays and the beginning of the semester. My evening plan is to update this log, including revisions to the introduction. So, since the sun is over the yardarm, or will be sooner or later, take a moment to mix your favorite form of grog and go back to the start of the log.:p By the time you retrace my journey, I will have posted about my progress with the Harriett Lane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top